Info on SDA (continued)

[adrift]

it is interesting though that in Jewish tradition that there are 4 archangels. Michael, Uriel, Raphiel, and of course Gabriel. the 4 are created beings, created to serve their Creator. yhwh. Michael is not Jesus in his pre incarnate state. he is according to the rabbis, a created being. no more, no less. we can dig further into this if you would like. i for one have never made this much of a point of study, so my knowlege will be admittedly limited. others on the other hand, have. Peace

Another point is that each has an el ending.

 

[CatholicLover]

I don’t speak Greek but using a Greek to English dictionary I could not find the word you used. I have a Greek translation of the verse but I cannot reproduce the way it is written. However, I did find the word in the dictionary and it meant blasphemous. When I looked up slander it was an entirely different word than you used. I wondered if you looked up the meaning of railing speech? It is used as an intransitive verb.

I looked it up in strongs concordance.

Edit: Here is a link to the definition. blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G988&t=KJV

 

[CatholicLover]

By the authority every person has to read the Bible. It doesn’t say He was married so we can’t conclude that he was.

Neither can SDAs conclude that Jesus wasn’t married with children, if the conclusion is sola scripture. Therefore, the authority of the SDA belief that Jesus wasn’t married is derived from somewhere. From where is that conclusion derived?

I just answered you. You can ask me as many times as you like but the answer will remain the same.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

The questions remains**:** By what authority do SDAs claim that Jesus was celibate and never married and had no children since it’s not spoken of in the bible?

Ya, see me the SDA do not claim this. Nor do they not claim it. It is a non-issue.

 

[me_again]

Neither can SDAs conclude that Jesus wasn’t married with children, if the conclusion is sola scripture. Therefore, the authority of the SDA belief that Jesus wasn’t married is derived from somewhere. From where is that conclusion derived?
CatholicLover;6968356:

I just answered you. You can ask me as many times as you like but the answer will remain the same.

You answered**:**

By the authority every person has to read the Bible.

Since the bible doesn’t say (one way or the other), how do you draw whichever conclusion you come to?

 

[Javl]

Ya, see me the SDA do not claim this. Nor do they not claim it. It is a non-issue.

A point of interest: It may be a non-issue for us, but it’s a matter of contention with the Gnostics.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[CatholicLover]

There really is no flawed logic there, if you stop to think about it. Both of you are correct and both of you are also wrong, and I’ll let you both figure that one out. Also, the third option is Gnosis.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Yes it is flawed logic. By me again’s reasoning, noone can ever follow sola scriptura if they have an opinion on this issue. There are sufficient contextual clues either way that makes his reasoning flawed. For example, it does not mention Jesus’ wife or family in the Bible, nor does a wife and family fit Jesus’ mission. On the other hand, as Benedict pointed out He was a Rabbi and He did create marriage and therefore it must be assumed that he is not anti-marriage. Either line of thought on its own is a reasonable conclusion based only on the facts contained in the Bible.

What Richard posted is also true though, the Adventist Church does not take sides on the issue. I probably should have just said that in the first place but I was too busy chuckling to myself at the twisted logic behind the question.

 

[Javl]

I don’t speak Greek but using a Greek to English dictionary I could not find the word you used. I have a Greek translation of the verse but I cannot reproduce the way it is written. However, I did find the word in the dictionary and it meant blasphemous. When I looked up slander it was an entirely different word than you used. I wondered if you looked up the meaning of railing speech? It is used as an intransitive verb.

My :twocents: worth;

Keep in mind that the Greek used is not classical or modern Greek but Koine Greek.
Koine Greek, as used, was an everyday slang-type of Greek much like Brooklynese ( N.Y. ) is to English.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Farsight001]

By me again’s reasoning, noone can ever follow sola scriptura if they have an opinion on this issue.

I think that’s the point. No one can truly follow sola scriptura, and so it becomes ridiculous to reject tradition or to criticize Catholics for not being sola scriptura.

What Richard posted is also true though, the Adventist Church does not take sides on the issue.

Out of curiosity, are you saying that SDA are free to personally believe that Jesus was married? Because I would be extremely interested to hear the reactions you get to postulating something like that to your other church members.

 

[benidict]

In the interest of full disclosure there are probably 3 camps of Adventist regarding this topic, one that believes Michael and Jesus are one and the same, another that does not believe it and yet another (probably the vast majority) that hasn’t given it much thought at all.
There is an ongoing debate in the Church on this issue.

again, i find your candor refreshing. it shows someone who is not afraid of the truth, and is not going to hide behind doctrine, or the status quo. kudos to you! Peace

 

[CatholicLover]

I think that’s the point. No one can truly follow sola scriptura, and so it becomes ridiculous to reject tradition or to criticize Catholics for not being sola scriptura.

I don’t accept this because, as I said, his reasoning is flawed. He is asserting that if we believe something that is not explicitly stated in scripture then we are not following the Bible. That is not the case, there are alot of things that a person may reasonable deduce upon reading the Bible because of the contextual clues and the fact that the opposite would be more unlikely. The plot from ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is one of those things. I can form my belief that Christ was single with no children because it is the most likely of the two options simply and still follow sola scriptura because the Bible doesn’t tell me otherwise. The fact that the Catholic Church also read Scripture and came to a similar conclusion has no bearing on the matter. I am confident that I am still following the Bible and Bible only.

Out of curiosity, are you saying that SDA are free to personally believe that Jesus was married? Because I would be extremely interested to hear the reactions you get to postulating something like that to your other church members.

I think it’s safe to say that Adventists believe that Jesus was single with no Children. As far as I know though there is no offical position on the issue and it would not bother most Adventists if it were ever shown that Jesus was actually married.

 

[Farsight001]

I don’t accept this because, as I said, his reasoning is flawed. He is asserting that if we believe something that is not explicitly stated in scripture then we are not following the Bible.

Again, I don’t think that’s his reasoning. That’s the point he’s trying to make. You’re talking past each other.

 

[benidict]

Another point is that each has an el ending.

i never noticed that but you are right! interesting. el shadie, elohiem…fascinating. and i believe the teenage mutant ninja turtles are named after these too. correct? peace, i love love learning new things. especially when it pertains to Judaism.

 

[Ads]

Yes it is flawed logic. By me again’s reasoning, noone can ever follow sola scriptura if they have an opinion on this issue. There are sufficient contextual clues either way that makes his reasoning flawed. For example, it does not mention Jesus’ wife or family in the Bible, nor does a wife and family fit Jesus’ mission. On the other hand, as Benedict pointed out He was a Rabbi and He did create marriage and therefore it must be assumed that he is not anti-marriage. Either line of thought on its own is a reasonable conclusion based only on the facts contained in the Bible.

What Richard posted is also true though, the Adventist Church does not take sides on the issue. I probably should have just said that in the first place but I was too busy chuckling to myself at the twisted logic behind the question.

Jesus was called Rabbi, but a Catholic priest is called Father but we dont asume they all have Children. A priest (from what i can gather) is married to the Catholic Church and in like manner i would say Christ to his people then, and as you can see in Revelation with the pure woman/Church.
Please correct me if i’m wrong. (still learning)

 

[CatholicLover]

i never noticed that but you are right! interesting. el shadie, elohiem…fascinating. and i believe the teenage mutant ninja turtles are named after these too. correct? peace, i love love learning new things. especially when it pertains to Judaism.

I think the Ninja Turtles were named after artistic masters. Raphael, Leonardo, Michelangelo and Donatelo (Yes, it’s sad that I remember that so clearly)

 

[me_again]

I don’t accept this because, as I said, his reasoning is flawed. He is asserting that if we believe something that is not explicitly stated in scripture then we are not following the Bible.
Farsight001;6971787:

Again, I don’t think that’s his reasoning. That’s the point he’s trying to make. You’re talking past each other.

Farsight001 is correct.

Christendom accepts the fact that Jesus didn’t have a wife and children because it is a part of Catholicism’s “sacred tradition” e.g. this knowledge was handed down from the apostles to the Christian followers and was recorded in Catholic documents. Without realizing it, the SDAs accept Catholicism’s sacred tradition on this topic because this information cannot be derived from their sola scripture stance.

 

[CatholicLover]

Farsight001 is correct.

Christendom accepts the fact that Jesus didn’t have a wife and children because it is a part of Catholicism’s “sacred tradition” e.g. this knowledge was handed down from the apostles to the Christian followers and was recorded in Catholic documents. Without realizing it, the SDAs accept Catholicism’s sacred tradition on this topic because this information cannot be derived from their sola scripture stance.

I know that’s your claim but you are absolutely incorrect for the reasons I’ve already stated.

 

[Javl]

Jesus was called Rabbi, but a Catholic priest is called Father but we dont asume they all have Children. A priest (from what i can gather) is married to the Catholic Church and in like manner i would say Christ to his people then, and as you can see in Revelation with the pure woman/Church.
Please correct me if i’m wrong. (still learning)

No correction needed. You’ve learned quite well. By the way, a Rabbi is a teacher ( akin to a scribe ) and is usually called Rebbe ( Rehbeh ). Shalom haMeshiach.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Farsight001]

I know that’s your claim but you are absolutely incorrect for the reasons I’ve already stated.

If you’re not talking past each other, then perhaps we’re not understanding what you’re trying to say, because I really don’t see any pertinent reasons given by you. Can you elaborate? Because I’m starting to get confused.

 

[me_again]

Mr. SDA CatholicLover said that since the word “unicorns” isn’t in the bible, there aren’t any. His comparative analogy is that since the bible doesn’t specify if Jesus had a wife and children, then He didn’t.

The bible alone (sola scripture) is completely silent on the issue. However, *sacred tradition *(in Catholicism) specifies that Jesus had no wife or children. Sacred tradition is equivalent to the Word of God, which the SDAs reject.

On the one hand, the SDAs claim sola scripture, but on the other hand, SDAs claim that Ellen White is God’s last day prophetess who provides written inspiration from God. Each SDA must make this profession in the SDA baptismal vow.